DACA and the Rule of Law

Article author: 
Bert Peterson
Article publisher: 
American Thinker
Article date: 
7 January 2018
Article category: 
National News
Article Body: 
...  if an "unauthorized" alien benefits from entering the U.S., and, "according to most economists," the economy benefits as well, and the alien commits no more crimes than average (not including the crime he committed by illegally entering the country), the law that prohibited his entry should be ignored.
To put it in another context, say a man "without authorization" kills another man.  Before we assess any penalty, we must first assess whether the loss of the victim is a net positive or negative for society.  Did he have a job, or was he on welfare?  (Was he Democrat or Republican?)
Such reasoning puts economic considerations above the law...
The problem with this is that the people whose laws were violated did no wrong, either.  So why should they be prevented from enforcing their laws?...
First, the parents are to blame.  One can understand and be sympathetic toward their crime, but it is a crime nonetheless.  Failing to deport a minor because the minor himself is not to blame rewards the crime.  Can a nation that professes to honor the rule of law reward those who break it? ...
Second, those Democrats who, for perceived political purposes, facilitated such illegal entries are to blame – as are Republicans who, fearing political backlash, did not oppose such measures..
The one who really merits the greatest blame and condemnation is Barack Obama.  This is not because he was a Democrat seeking to bring in more Democrat voters – coming from a partisan Democrat politician, this is understandable.  But Obama was more than a Democrat – he was the president, sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." ...
What can be passed through executive action can be removed through executive action, particularly when that action is unconstitutional.  Obama created a legal status for immigrants, but it was a status that could be removed with the stroke of another president's pen.  Obama surely did not think that would happen.  He surely believed he was creating a situation that, politically, would be hard to undo.  (Indeed, it is.)  But for this very reason, it should be undone.  If it is not, then, through his abuse of presidential authority to create a situation difficult to undo, Obama has achieved his aim.  He will be rewarded, and a precedent will be set. 
If we are to be a nation of laws, there must be some penalty for the violation of the law...


Rep. Mo Brooks: ‘DACA Amnesty Is a Subversion of the Rule of Law, a Betrayal of American Families’, by Sean Moran, Breitbart, January 4, 2018. Reprinted on American Renaissance:
Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL), a long opponent of illegal immigration, told Breitbart News that any form of DACA amnesty will serve as a “subversion of the rule of law, a betrayal of American families, who are struggling to find jobs to support those families; then, the vehicle does not make much of a difference.”
He said, “It’s all about the numbers in the workforce: The fewer legal and illegal aliens there are in the workforce, the more money struggling American families will be paid, particularly through the blue-collar middle-income fields. The key is to decrease the overall influx of legal and illegal immigrants to the benefit of American workers. If there is a deal struck in which DACA illegal aliens are given amnesty, but overall, there is a significant reduction in the influx of foreign labor, then the American worker comes up ahead.”
Brooks argued that America needs to build the wall, end chain migration, and end the diversity visa...